Discussion in 'Economy' started by Toro, Sep 11, 2008.
Economic View - Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan? - NYTimes.com
Yeah, no doubt.
Republicans cannot understand why drastic income inequity is ultimately bad for a democratic republic.
That or they basically hate having to live in a democratic anything, which is, I think probably basically truer than my previous statement.
Post WWII Presidents are really elected by roughly 8-12% of non-ideologicial independents that politically sit right in the center of the spectrum. That group is at least modestly educated with at least high school educations and most have post secondary educations. The are also either skilled labor or professionals, meaning they are personally doing fine even in hard economic times. Over the past seven Presidencies the elections have mostly focused on National defense issues, not the economy. Only Bill Clinton won on mostly an economic campaign. National Defense concerns, among those 8-12% that decide Presidential elections, trump economic issues, which is one potential reason why republicans tend to get elected more often.
Presidents have little to no impact on the economy anyway. Whatever policies they send to Congress almost NEVER get passed. Most Presidential budgets are dead on arrival. About all a Pres can do is appoint someone of like philosophy to the Federal Reserve.
I don't agree with that on a number of levels but it raises interesting points. I doubt anyone is non-ideological and the only ones who would be considered that are those who can stand back and make rational choices. But even the choices have some background ideology.
My family sons and friends are in those professional levels and they are all on one side or the other of that imaginary center. In truth it seems a very few issues would push you to one side or the other. eg social security, welfare, taxes.
Presidents have a enormous influence on the economy even when it bites them. Consider the crazy spending of Reagan and Bush and its outcome. Keynesian economics needs to be tempered with restraint it seems.
"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."
Tax cuts spur economic growth
the fact that neither party admits is that different policies work at different times, Reagan cut taxes and the economy grew, Clinton raised taxes and the economy grew, Bush showed up at the White House and the economy tanked
One of the best fiscal moves ever was the gov't shutdown of '95. Led to budget surpluses and in the resulting gridlock spending was held to a minimum. The millions of government workers who spend all day surfing the web were forced to do so from home.
Dem pres + GOP congress = balanced budget, economic growth, and a government far more limited than we've ever had with a GOP president
This honestly is not surprising to me. I've seen similar stats before.
And yet some people still try to spin that the GOP economy wise is better for the middle class.
Reagon's trickle down theory never really trickled anywhere.
Separate names with a comma.